SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FS-08-062590-01
DATE: 2014 11 26
RE: Mrs. Slongo Louise Slongo
– and –
Mr. Christopher Ronald Slongo
BEFORE: Lemon, J.
COUNSEL:
Paul Buttigieg, for the Applicant
Herschel Fogelman and Oren Weinberg, for the Respondent
HEARD: October 22, 2014
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] Mr. Slongo has retired earlier than expected. He has received a pension payout and a new consulting job that has raised his income. As a result, Mrs. Slongo has brought a motion to vary the child and spousal support upon which they agreed. That earlier agreement was made into a court order. The issues for me to decide are:
Has the early retirement brought about a material change in circumstances that will allow for a variation of the order and agreement?
To what extent has the pension payout already been equalized in their earlier order and agreement?
If a variation is appropriate, to what extent should Mrs. Slongo’s spousal support be varied?
If Mrs. Slongo’s spousal support is to be varied, to what extent should I rely on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines?
Is Mr. Slongo still required to pay child support for their daughter?
[2] This matter was reserved by me at the end of argument October 22, 2014. At this stage of my analysis, I have resolved a number of issues but I require further assistance from counsel.
[3] One of the ways that I can resolve my concerns is to direct a trial of an issue (See Rule 15 (26)). For the benefit of the parties, I would like to avoid that time and expense. I therefore seek assistance from counsel.
[4] Although there were a number of issues to be dealt with at the hearing of the motion, my analysis to date has reduced them. Given the number of possible combinations of determinations in my ruling, I do not fault counsel for failing to provide me with the assistance that I now need.
Pension Reports
[5] The evidence that I have before me includes the reports of Mr. Norton dated November 5, 2007 and October 24, 2013. I also have the reports of DSW Actuarial Services Inc., dated June 20, 2013 and November 14, 2013. Mr. Norton, in his evidence of October 21, commented on the report of DSW Actuarial Services. Unfortunately, I have no comment by DSW Actuarial Services on Mr. Norton’s report. Both actuaries acknowledged that the effect of the list of factors set out in the appendix to the DSW Report can vary depending on the order in which they are calculated. They agreed that no particular order is better than another. I do not see that I can make that determination. I need further assistance with respect to the best order to follow in this particular case. This may come from DSW or, better yet, from both actuaries after they have discussed it together. In short, what is the most appropriate order to apply each factor and why? Should I accept Mr. Norton’s view of the percentage difference as set out on page 4 of his October 2013 report (after taking into consideration his arithmetical and typing errors)?
[6] One of the ways to resolve this matter would be to simply accept the evidence of Mr. Norton since I have no evidence to the contrary. For a variety of reasons to follow, I am hesitant to rely entirely upon Mr. Norton’s opinion.
Spousal Support
[7] For written reasons to follow, I am satisfied that there has been a material change in circumstances such that spousal support should be varied. I am also satisfied that the claim for child support should be dismissed. Mr. Buttigieg submitted that I should determine spousal support on the basis of the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. In essence, Mr. Fogelman submitted that there should be no further spousal support ordered. From my analysis to date, I am not sure that either is correct. I have not yet decided if the Guidelines apply; however, no submissions were made as to what the spousal support should be on a means and needs basis. I do not believe that it is fair for me to enter into that determination without greater input from counsel.
[8] In short, what should Mrs. Slongo’s support be if there has been a material change in circumstances, no child support and the Guidelines do not apply?
Request
[9] I would ask that counsel contact each other and consider what the process might be to resolve these two outstanding issues. If counsel can agree on the process, I am almost certain to accept their proposal. Counsel may simply write to me by joint letter as to their agreement. Alternatively, if they cannot agree, they should arrange a conference call with me to find a date to discuss the matter on the record.
Lemon, J.
DATE: November 26, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: FS-08-062590-01
DATE: 2014 11 26
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: PAMELA LOUISE SLONGO
and
CHRISTOPHER RONALD SLONGO
BEFORE: Lemon, J
COUNSEL: Paul Buttigieg, for the Applicant
Herschel Fogelman and Oren Weinberg, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Lemon, J.
DATE: November 26, 2014